Una clase para enseñar a pensar/filosofar: trasfondo teórico de su

Follett’s concepts were based on her work in community organizations and the research undertaken in business, thus underpinning their usefulness. However, she has been accused of being utopian, unrealistic, ingenuous, and naïve from micro to macro levels (Graham, 1995; Nohria, 1995; Tonn, 2003). To some extent accusations of unworkable idealistic methods are understandable, particularly in the modern world of globalization, multi-national corporations and a blurring of accountability (Petrick, 2012). Even in her own time Follett’s work was criticised for being impractical. Writing for the New York Times in 1924, John E Lind’s review of Creative Experience doubted the practicalities of her central theme of integration to resolve disputes (Davis, 2015). Lind’s scepticism highlights the distinct difficulty that Follett presents to managers, which is her limited account of how to deal with problems that defy resolution. For example where management and workers retreat into pre-conceived ideas then become immune to

collaboration and creative ways of dispute resolution. The times when conflict resolution fails, leading to irretrievable breakdowns, have not been addressed in the same practical vein in which Follett focuses on systems and organizational management. Thus, pragmatism appears to elude Follett on the inevitable occasions when it is not possible to achieve integrated interests for the greater good. Although she does acknowledge that there are times when integration may not work, Follett does not offer an alternative other than to invoke her view that it is easier to fight but takes ‘a high order of intelligence’ to pursue integration (Follett, 1941: 45).

In fairness to Follett, this flaw is evident in the works of other pre-eminent theorists such as Juran (1995), McGregor (1960), Drucker (1987), and Deming (1986) who also do not offer a solution to every situation. The management scholar and consultant, Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1995), is mindful of Follett’s propensity to optimism and agrees that practicalities occasionally escape her. To some extent Kanter balances these criticisms by noting that Follett’s optimism is based on her

36

hopefulness about the group. The American admiration of individualism and wariness of collectivism Kanter believes put Follett under particular scrutiny and discouraged management professionals from taking her ideas and developing them (Kanter, 1995). However, there are several basic concepts advocated by Follett that have contributed to the prosperity of business and society and the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational management. These include the overwhelming view of theorists, concurring with Follett, that empowering and equipping a workforce with the knowledge, skills and confidence to innovate, cooperate and share ideas leads to sustainable levels of competitive performance (Eylon, 1998). Notions described here were championed by Follett decades before leading management writers whose names were consequently associated with the theories (De Bono,1991; Deming, 1986; Drucker,1974; Juran, 1995; Kanter, 1985, 1990; Peters, 1987; Senge, 1990; Wilkinson, 1998; Utterback, 1994).

Furthermore, the lack of guidance forthcoming in Follett’s works may have evolved as her theories were consolidated and implemented (Fry and Lotte, 1996;

Schilling, 2000).

2.6.1 Naivety

An example that brought Follett’s idealism under scrutiny was given by McLarney and Rhyno (1999). Citing the parlous state of the Roxbury neighbourhood, in Boston, some 80 years after Follett sought to transform the run-down area (para 2.3.4), McLarney and Rhyno (1999) conceded that Follett could be considered utopian and naïve. Follett certainly expected that the initiatives she instigated in poor urban areas would have withstood economic and social challenges more robustly. Moreover, Follett’s ambitions to educate communities to control and build a better future appear overly optimistic. Similar to other authors who praise Follett for her prescience, McLarney and Rhyno (1999) temper their admiration by acknowledging that Follett’s faith in the good of humanity underpinned her

concepts. In so doing, the realities and evidence that human beings do not

always subscribe to Follett’s belief that the highest individual fulfilment is achieved through the fulfilment of the group, undermines some of her credentials (Follett, 1941:247; O’Connor, 2000). Another doubt about political pragmatism associated with Follett’s concepts arose from the eventual depletion of her school centres.

37

Along with the success of the community centres programme, at a national level came power struggles that were largely along geographical east/west divisions. After the disagreements of overall authority to run the centres they were

transferred from local funding to federal funding and were reduced drastically when the Great Depression (1929) led to austerity cuts (Tonn, 2003). Therefore,

although it has to be recognised that Follett’s philosophy is grounded in practice and the success of her work, especially with community groups, she seems to have underestimated the political nature of organizations. Nevertheless, comparable criticism of political naivety was made of organizational learning theorist Chris Argyris (1977) whose ideas about reflective learning are similar to those of Follett. Critiquing Argyris’ faith in management to implement

organizational learning, Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2003) cite a lack of

understanding of personal vicissitudes coupled with external and internal political influences, making the adoption of a framework problematic. Even so, just as the majority of Argyris’s ideas have contributed to organizational success, Follett’s ideas are worthy of praise for their simplicity and accessibility (Phelps, Paravitam and Olsen, 2007).

Viewing the group as a benign and democratic phenomenon prompted Nita Nohria (1995) to charge Follett with being ingenuous. With particular reference to

Michel’s iron law of oligarchy, Nohria (1995) explains the inevitability that all

groups, however egalitarian and democratic, fall into a structure headed by a small elite that directs the remainder. However, recent scholarly work challenges the basis of Michel’s law by claiming that the use of social mass media negates one of the principle sources of oligarchy power, which is the distribution or withholding of information (Welser, 2015). Other critics agree with Fry and Lotte (1996) about Follett’s lack of guidance when the steps she recommends do not produce the required results (Berman and Van Buren, 2015; Nohria, 1995; Schilling, 2000). Even so, all these commentators remain supporters of the principle of Follett’s ideas of cooperation, integration, diversity, growing and sharing power, the law of the situation and the invisible leader. The challenge for managers in the past has

38

been to hold their faith in reforms and advances in developing human capital; but it has never been easy. Yet by doing as Follett suggested and giving managers the skills and power to deal with hurdles, major breakthroughs in social and

economic business practices have been accomplished and give hope for effective operationalisation of MSR (Armstrong, 1977; Armstrong and Green, 2013).

2.6.2 Macro level

Follett hoped that power-with, the law of the situation, integration, and coordination would be evident in the League of Nations. Her experience of

working with the League, confirmed Follett’s belief that unifying interests according to the law of the situation and using conflict creatively would lead to enduring peace. With the failure of the League, the lack of commitment to integration and taking up positions of win-lose, came examples of her ideas not working at the macro level unless completely absorbed into the systems to which everyone subscribed (Sethi, 1962). The Second World War and the demise of the League could be used as grounds for criticising Follett’s ideas. Recently, however, historians have suggested that the very issues that Follett wanted addressing were ignored and festered which led to fighting among those nations that were united temporarily in the League. For example, Henig (2006) cites the implacable interests of major powers using the League to consolidate and further their power as the cause of failure and the rise of fascism and war. Although idealistic,

Follett’s ideas about power-with and not power-over, integrating conflicting interests and rejecting trade-offs bear similarities to Duggan (2008) as a way in which the League could have survived successfully and averted World War Two.

Nevertheless, looking at the macro and nation state-level, Follett’s optimism appears to be naïve. According to Follett the effects of educating people about their power to engage with democracy would be so profound it would create power-with and reduce the domination of elites (Fry and Lotte, 1996; Parker, 1984). She believed that following this course of action would reduce massively all conflicts, especially those leading to war and would fulfil her belief that when the group uses ‘collective thinking…the expansion of life will begin…and feel only elation that the group has accomplished something’ (Follett,1918:31). However,

39

when this does not work, as with integration, Follett does not follow through with a procedure to address failure (Fry and Lotte, 1996; McLarney and Rhyno, 1999).

Notwithstanding criticism that her faith in human beings and the group was ingenuous and too trusting, it helped Follett to create her concepts that are

identical to those working successfully in modern management. Earlier Narendrak Sethi (1962), writing a largely favourable paper about Follett, questioned the universal commitment required to her ideas for them to be operationalised. Sethi identified a weakness that others have cited in Follett’s rationale (Kanter, 1995; Nohria, 1995). For Follett’s vision to be realised those with power would dilute or lose power-over by promoting power-with relationships with ‘mankind and the whole universe as their action centres’ (Sethi, 1962:215). This change in corporate power bases would involve an enormous shift in attitudes in the most influential actors in business and society. Ambitions as heroic as those to promote human welfare and engage business in the process were discussed by Urwick when writing about Follett’s contribution to management. Urwick acknowledged that for business management to subscribe to Follett’s ‘common purpose’ (1970:1) an unprecedented ‘mental revolution’ would be needed in the corporate world (Urwick and Brech, 1945:55).

Naivety about the difficulties likely to be encountered in a mental revolution need to be acknowledged, as should Follett’s optimism about humanity (Kanter, 1995; Nohria, 1995). However, there is widespread admiration for creative thinkers, Fayol (1988), Deming (1986), Drucker (1955), Juran (1995), and other pioneers, who have benefitted business and society by believing in the fundamental good in humanity. Some luck and serendipity helped their innovative approaches to be adopted and it often took time and exigencies of events to reach fruition. Drucker, Deming and Juran’s work, for example, needed the rebuilding of post-war

Japanese industry to provide a testing ground for their management principles. It is, therefore, to the credit of human nature that individuals come along to push boundaries and propose new ways of working. With regard to modern

management and Follett’s impact on it, Phelps, et al, (2007) suggest that she provided a bridge between the scientific management of Taylor (1911) and the

40

leadership and cooperative approach of Deming (1986). Without her bold approach and unstinting faith in human nature, this bridge would not have been created. Furthermore, whilst endorsing this idea, history has shown that Follett’s work offers managers solutions to contemporary conundrums as well as those not yet ascertained.